Avodah Mailing List

Volume 12 : Number 008

Tuesday, October 7 2003

• kesher tefillin - sifsei chaim
• Fasting before bar-mitzvah
• Re: time of selichot
• Eruvin
• Re: Shofar on Shabbos RH
• Re: tehillim
• Reshus Harabim (was: Not Blowing the Shofar)
• Re: davening in place where your friends are or in a 'friendly' place - desirable ?
• Lev haIvri
• Do Animals have a Right to Life?
• hasgacha
• Re: Hashgocha Pratis etc.,
• Re: Hebrew Pronunciation

When I was learning in Yeshivath HaNegev (Azata) in the late ' 70s I
asked Rav Chaim Friedlander zt"l (who was then the mashgiach, commuting
weekly from Bnei Braq) if I should change the kesher on my shel rosh to
a single daled from a double daled and he said no.

G'mar  Chasimah Tovah
Pinchas M. Berlowitz

According to RSZA (Halichos Shlomo II), the "minhag" that a child fasts
on the three fast days prior to his/her bar/bas mitzvah has no makor
whatsoever. Rather, a child should fast for part of the day but he should
not complete the fast - even if Yom Kippur is the last fast day before
the child's bar mitzvah. The inyan of chinuch is fulfilled by fasting
for part of the day. RSZA used to instruct that children should not fast
before their bar-mitzvah, even if the family "minhag" was to do so.

Question: Are there others who argue? Can anyone direct me to other
sources that discuss this?

KT, GS and GCT,
Aryeh

In Avodah V12 #6, Akiva Miller wrote:
> So, let's put this in perspective of our original question, which was
> the proper time for selichos during Elul and AYT.

If you recall, I wasn't sure whether s'lichos were named after birchas
"S'lach na" or placed there during weekday fasts because their motif was
"S'lach na." I would tend to go with the latter (that is, they're named
after their motif, and it made sense to say them at a "S'lach na" point
in the davening). During Yom HaKippurim, by the way, Minhag Ashknaz says
S'lichos during Chazoras HaShaTz, just as it does during weekday fasts,
but it does so ahead of "Elokainu...m'chal" (there's no birchas "S'lach
na," and my thinking is that "Elokainu...m'chal" was chosen because it's
a common point in all the t'filos of the day).

The S'lichos of Elul through erev YhK seem to have a special,
pre-Shacharis timing for reasons related to the season and our desire to
approach HaShaim when He's close. An "ais rotzon" is, I would speculate,
fundamentally different than the "ais tzarah" of the ta'aniyos and than
the precise "ais" after a chag. That said, I wouldn't be surprised
if the ancient minhag Ashknaz included saying s'lichos also during the
chazoras haShaTz of the Elul-through-erev-YhK days, just as it does for
YhK, as we are b'tzarah g'dolah because of rish-ainu.

> I see several possiblilities:
> 1) Originally, Elul/AYT was also done during Selach Lanu, but was moved
> to before Shacharis for some reason.
> 2) Originally, Taanis/BHB had slichos before Shacharis, but was moved to
> Selach Lanu for some reason.
> 3) Despite similar formats, Elul/AYT and Taanis/BHB developed selichos
> independently of each other, and therefore are unable to shed any light on
> each other.

I've speculated on #1 a bit. #2 is possible, esp. given what was quoted.
I realize you were talking timing, not content, when you added #3,
but I have to note that it seems to be true re content of the piyutim
themselves: some were written in response to recent events, some in
response to ancient events, some for the season we're currently in; I
would guess that most were -not- written with the intent of being formally
used by Jews as part of a package we call S'lichos. If someone already
spoke to the history of saying S'lichos, I would appreciate being pointed
to the post(s), else I would love to see a learned exposition. Thanks.

All the best from
 -Michael Poppers via RIM pager

Somebody emailed this to me in areivim and I am switching it to avodah
because of the torah content.
-----------------------------------------

Not mentioned (even in R. Bechhofer's sefer) is the kuntres by R. Avraham
Price he put out in the early 1950s when he was putting up the Toronto
eruv. (Which is why it's not included in his halacha sefer: Mishnas
Avraham published earlier in 1944).

He has some very interesting and novel arguments there for big cities. One
example: when counting the width of streets for 16 amos -- while you do
count the sidewalks where people walk, you can't include the streets which
are mostly reserved for cars and trucks. He also applies it to highways
to those who wish to count the 600,000. see page 16 of the kuntres.

He also brings down the Yeshuos Malko (Gaon M'Kotno) who discusses the
status of people riding in trains and compares it to people riding in
cars. See page 16 of the kuntres.

The kuntres was reprinted in Hapardes (Teves 5711).

------------------------------------------------------------------

While you are right that R. Bechhofer didn't quote from the kovetz on
the Toronto eruv in his sefer, I think he knew about it, for he cites
the Yesodei Yeshurun from R. Felder who does talk about R. Price's
kuntres. R. Felder was involved with his Rebbe R. Avraham Price in making
the eruv in Toronto.

 

I will add a few observations of my own: 

 

1) R. Price brings down the great posek R. Avrhom Ahron Yudelovitz,
the author of Shu't Bais Av[i]. R. Yudelovitz cited a chiddush l'heter
(Bais Av 2:9:2), in the name of an author with the initals "T'Z",
that the streets and the sidewalks on either side of the street are not
considered connected to form one continuous 16 amos. R. Price goes on to
say he doesn't know whom this author is. Well, I can tell you. It's the
Tikvas Zecharia, R. Zecharia Yoseph Rosenfeld of St. Louis, who was the
originator of this chiddush. The Klausenburger gaon also says something
similar to this chiddush (see Divrei Yatziv o'c 2:172:13; see also Oim
Ani Chomah, siman 63 from R. Menasha Klien). I believe that the poskim
who mention this are really only using it as a sniff l'heter. You can
possibly add to this category (that the streets are not 16 amos wide)
by saying that the parked cars are mechitzos in and of themselves and
separate the sidewalk from the street (see Nesivos Shabbos 3:1 note! 2)

2) R. Price also cites the Yeshuos Malko (Gaon M’Kotno) about the status of people in trains and cars. I would like to give a partial list of poskim who utilize this chiddush for I believe that most people don’t realize how many poskim make use of it. (1) Bais Ephraim o. c. 26 (2) Marsham o.c. 1:162 (3) Yeshuos Malko siman 26-27 (4) Harei Besamim 5:73 (5) Bais Av 2:9:3 (6) Ma’hari Stief siman 68 (7) Divrei Yatziv o.c. 2:172:13 (8) Vyaan Yoseph 1:155:1 (9) Tikun Eruvin Manhhattan siman 12 p105 (10) Kinyan Torah 4:40:6 (11) R. Bechhofer brings down in his sefer  (page 54) that   R. E. Y. Waldenberg is also of this opinion.

3) Here is a partial list of sources, some quoted and some not quoted
by R. Bechhofer, that promote building an eruv in large cities. Tikvas
Zecharia, the St. Louis eruv[ii]; Tikkun Shabbos and Tuv Yehoshua, Divrei
Malkiel 3:14-18 and addendum 4:3, the Odessa eruv; Oznei Yehoshua 1:18 and
Eruv V'Hotza'a and Tirosh Vayitzhur siman 73, the N.Y eruv; Bais Av vol
2, the Manchester eruv; Chavalim Ba'Neimim 3:14[iii]; And R. A. Price's
kuntres, the Toronto eruv (there was also a booklet published about the
current eruv); Chazon Ish siman 74:10 and 107:4-7, regarding eruvin in
large cities; and Achiezer 4:8, regarding making a eruv in Paris[iv];
R. M. Kasher's sefer, Divrei Menachem o.c.vol 2, on the Manhattan eruv,
and Har Tzvi o.c. 2:24 regarding the Manhattan eruv; R. Y. D. Moskowitz's
Tikkun Eruvin Manhattan; Toras Chemed siman 1-5 on a Willamsburg eruv;
Mhari Shtief siman 68 on a Manhattan and Williamsburg eruv; Divrei Yatziv
2:172,173 regarding eruvin in large cities; V'Yaan Yoseph 1:195,202
on a Manhattan and Queens eruv; Oim Ani Chomah on the Boro Park eruv;
Shevet HaLevi 8:97-98 regarding the Chicago eruv; Even Yisroel siman
36, Kinyan Torah 4:40 regarding the eruv in Yerushlaim; Maczhe Eliyahu
siman 39 regarding eruvin in large cities; Rechovas Ha'ir regarding the
Antwerp eruv.
------------------------------------------

[i] He was in my humble opinion the greatest posek who ever immigrated
to America; save for maybe the Ridvaz who's stay in the U.S. was short.


 

 

[ii] R. Bechhofer I believe is mistaken that this eruv wasn't implemented
and that R. Rosenfeld was nifter shortly after making his proposal (see
p31 in The Contemporary Eruv). I personally know the family and they say
he was nifter in 1915, twenty years after he created this eruv. Also in
the sefer Shoel k'Inyan, it's implied that the eruv was implemented.


 

 

[iii] He made the first eruv in Toronto and incidentally R' Henkin called
him the Achiezer of the Americas.


 

 
[iv] This tshuva is very relevant, for circumstances in Paris were
similar to Brooklyn with only one very important difference. In Brooklyn,
a tzuras ha'pesach was made, as opposed to Paris where they would have
had to use existing mechitzos. In both cases, though, the cities have
well over 600,000 people, which leads me to what R. Bechhofer said in
his sefer (p49) regarding this tshuva from the Achiezer. Rabbi Bechhofer
explains that we can derive from this Achiezer that a city becomes a
reshus ha'rabbim if the combined number of people traversing all its
streets equals 600,000, as opposed to the criteria of 600,000 people
being filled only when they traverse a single street. I disagree with
R. Bechhofer's interpretation because 1) From the Achiezer we can garner
[read the Achiezer carefully] that at least one street would have to
meet the requirement of 600,000 people traversing it to make the city
a reshus ha'rabbim. 2) Why does the Achiezer only cite the Bais Ephriam
(1:26 p45), regarding Paris being a reshus ha'rabbim because its streets
(The fact that the Bais Ephriam quotes the question posed to the Chacham
Tzvi (siman 67) stating that the sratyas and platyas of England possibly
had 600,000 people traversing them is proof that he is of the opinion that
the shishem ribo is a requirement of the street as opposed to the city. I
know of many further proofs regarding the Bais Ephraim.) are traversed
by 600,000 people and doesn't utilize the Bais Ephriam's heter enabling
us to make an eruvin in Paris and in other big cities by evaluating each
street independently to see if it is less than 16 amos wide or if it
isn't mefulash? If so, then Paris would meet the requirements needed to
exempt these streets from the din of reshus ha'rabbim not withstanding
the 600,000 people traversing it. In any case, according to this Bais
Ephriam, the Achiezer didn't have to rely solely on mechitzos to remove
the streets of Paris from the din of reshus ha'rabbim (since its not 16
amos or mifulash.) So I understand the Achiezer otherwise. Since they were
talking about making an eruv to include the whole city of Paris by using
the city's boundaries as the eruv, to encompass a street that has 600,000
people traversing it you would need to utilize mechitzos to remove the
din of reshus ha'rabbim from the city. It was not possible at the time to
build a tzuras ha'pesach in order to exclude any street that had a din
reshus ha'harbbim from the boundaries of the eruv. Now it makes sense
that the Achiezer states that if one street has a din reshus ha'rabbim
that is enough of a reason not to be allowed to make an eruv in the whole
of Paris because you would then have to include that problematic street
in the given boundaries (hence the Achiezer called the whole of Paris a
reshus ha'rabbim.) In this situation the Bais Ephriam's suggestion to
look at each individual street isn't relevant, for that would require
the Achiezer to know the ins and out of every street in Paris, and then
in any case, if the street nevertheless met all the other criterion
of reshus ha'rabbim, he would have had to leave out that problematic
street, which they obviously were not able to do in that situation since
they were going to resort to using the city boundaries (See also Divrei
Menachem o.c.vol. 2 p40 and kovetz Ohr Yisroel vol. 18 p19.)

>1. See Ir ha-Kodesh ve-ha-Mikdash (588:4) for
>the entire episode regarding R. Akiva Yosef
>Schlesinger.

>I couldn't locate the sefer.

All five volumes are available online at
http://www.aishdas.org/torahnet/cgi-bin/jump.cgi?ID=83

Gil Student

R' Harry Maryles asked <<< What was the point of telling him to recite
the hebrew alphabet? Why not simply say to what is on his heart in his
own vernacular? >>>

I suspect that if the man had been capable of davening in the vernacular,
the Besht certainly would have suggested that. Perhaps there were no
Yiddish translations available, or perhaps the man could not read,
or perhaps he felt -- as so many other people feel -- that he just
could not figure out the right words to say, even if to make up his own
personal prayer.

I have always presumed - and some versions of the story say so explicitly -
that the man did more than simply recite an incoherent alphabet. Now
and then he would also say things like "Ribono Shel Olam! I don't know
the tefilos. But I do know the letters. Will You, please, take these
letters and arrange them into proper tefilos, please?"

Even if the man did not say such things verbally, he was surely thinking
them. Even if in *general*, we'd hold that an unspoken tefila is not
a valid tefila, perhaps in *this* case, the action of reciting the
aleph-beis will suffice to invoke "machshava mitztaref l'maaseh", to
transform it into a genuine tefila, afilu l'shitas R' Harry.

Akiva Miller

R' Gil Student wrote <<< if there is no reshus ha-rabim de-oraisa today
then ... >>>

I have seen this assertion many times and in many places, but I have
never seen an explanation of *why* there is no reshus harabim today. For
example, no one claims that a reshus harabim requires "Bias Kulchem".

So let me ask my question in this manner: Granted that every authority
who ever said "there is no reshus ha-rabim de-oraisa today" was speaking
accurately about HIS own day, but why should anyone think that it remains
true in OUR day?

Akiva Miller

R"n Rena Freedenberg praised her shul because <<< I can hear very well
and I can have tremendous kavana there and there aren't usually any
noisy kids that are allowed to disturb... >>>

and R' Micha Berger responded <<< Then you wouldn't have liked
Hak-heil... >>>

I'm not convinced that the things we normally associate with shul
are relevant to Hakhel. It is easy to say "I have to hear the Melech
laining!" but it is simply not possible for so many people - or even a
great majority of them - to hear him. The melech has a chiyuv to lain,
but I think that *our* chiyuv is merely to attend. We will be inspired
not from hearing the words of the laining, but from being among the crowd.

Akiva Miller

From: "Danny Schoemann" <dannyschoemann@hotmail.com>
> Regarding my post to Areivim about going to listen to a shofar being blown
> on Shabbes. A chaveir (Myronw2@aol.com - thanks) sent me 4 references:
>>1. See Ir ha-Kodesh ve-ha-Mikdash (588:4) for the entire episode regarding
>>R. Akiva Yosef Schlesinger.

I couldn't locate the sefer. Apparently RAYS is the author of the mussar
sefer Lev haIvri, which our shul does have (in the catalogue) but was
not on its shelf.

A peirush on the Tzavo'eh of the CS z'l, IIRC.

SBA

Can anyone suggest answers for the following question?

Hashem tells Yonah that He is having mercy upon Ninveh which is a great
city "with many animals" (Yonah 4:11). Some say that "many animals" refers
to brutish people, but simply speaking it refers to actual animals. As
Radak says, they are not deserving of retribution, and therefore Hashem
would not wipe out the city since it would cause the animals to die.

BUT in the generation of Noach, this reasoning didn't necessarily apply
at all. True, one explanation is that the animals sinned and therefore
deserved to die. But another explanation is as the Gemara quotes Hashem,
"I only created the animals and beasts for man; now that man has sinned,
why do I need the animals and beasts?" (Sanhedrin 108a).

So according to this explanation, what is the difference between the
animals in Noah's time and those of Ninveh?

Thanks,
Nosson Slifkin
www.zootorah.com

>>He brings down three views:
>1. The Ramban's (pp. 82-83): Hashem's individual providence is only on
>>those who recognize and cling to Him.
>>2. The Ramak's (pp. 83-87): Individual providence applies to animals only
>>when it relates to people. [This seems to be the view of R' Aryeh Kaplan
>>in Handbook of Jewish Thought vol. 2 19:7-8 pp. 288-289.]
>>3. The Gra's (p. 87ff.): Individual providence applies to everything
>>created. He quotes R' Yonasan Eybeshutz and Radal who agree.

> What about the Rambam's view that it applies to species, but not
> individual animals? (Raises the question of whether spotted owls were
> a species bifnei atzmam or part of the larger species of owls!)

I found these statements strange.

1. Ramban also says explicitly that hasgacha applies to animal species
only
2. Dpesn't everyone agree that hasgacha applies to animals when it
affects humans. Why is that different than other type of hasgacha?
Bilaam's donkey spoke because of Bilaam not hasgacha on the donkey.

I thought someone said that Besht "invented" hasgacha on everything.
Is Gra agreeing with a Besht invention?

GCT
Eli Turkel

BTW I find it strange that Gra would ignore all the rishonim against
his position and rely on RYE and Radal.

Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
>> In sum:  There is no justification for R' Bechhofer criticising Prof 
>> Levi for proposing a non BESHTian understanding of hashkofa protis 
>> because every one of the above mentioned sefer do exactly that. Not a 
>> single example of a non chassidic sefer conforming to R' Bechhofer's 
>> requirements has been cited. Thus even assuming that the BESHT's view 
>> is cited in the Sifsei Chaim - he clearly presents an understanding 
>> of hashkofa protis which ignores it.

> Forgive my mystification. The MME in vol. 5 p. 308 clearly alludes to the
> post-Besht conception ("seforim ha'kedoshim"). IIRC his discussion of
> rotzei'ach b'shogeg in vol. 4 is very closely linked to the conception
> as well. The fact that you have decided on a "test marker" for adoption
> of the conception is not mechayev those who were not focused on the
> same marker!

The MME in vol 5 p. 308 does not mention "seforim ha'kedoshim" so I
asuume you are referring to p309. There he states: The Seforno writes
"that all non Jews, and most Jews except for the elite are without doubt
under the domain of nature." this requires further investigation since in
'seforim ha'kedoshim' it explains that all Jews are under the domain of
hashgocah protis.

This is not a clear allusion to the post-Besht concept but rather the
pre-Beshtian concept. Furthermore he discusses the difference between
the hashgocha of man and animals on p 308 and this is not the Beshtian
concept.

As regards my use of the status of animals and plants as a "test marker"
it was not an arbitrary one that I or R' Micha made up but it is the
one that the Lubavticher Rebbe uses in his survey of the pre and post
Beshtian concept. It would be appreciated if you explain why you reject
this "test marker" and what you are using instead?

[Email #2. -mi]

Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
>>Similarly  I would assume that one must tell the Munkatcher that he
>>has no right to  prohibit learning the preBESHTian position. There
>>is no doubt that the  Chassidim have never heard of the RYGB
>>principle or else reject it.

>I cannot account for many positions of the Munkatcher, nor am I responsible 
>for any narrow-mindedness amongst Chassidim. I am responsible for avoiding 
>the pitfalls of narrow-mindedness in my own life and teaching. Prof. Levi 
>clearly, as an exemplary scholar, strives to do so as well. Where he may 
>fall short, some critique is legitimate, as is the case when I fall short.

We seem to be talking past each other but I will try one more time. I
would like to note that I agree in principle about the desirability of
teaching the full range of legitimate opinions. My basic objection has
been to your criticism of Prof Levi for not teaching the position of
the Besht. I think this criticism is valid only if the RYGHP principle
is accepted l'maaseh in teaching hashkofah and thus Prof Levi would be
violating an accepted principle. As I noted before I could not find
a single non chassidic hashkofah work where the view of the BESHT is
taught. And aside for the review of the Lubavitcher Rebbe I haven't
seen examples in the chassidic literature where the non BESHTian view
is presented. To reiterate my data, There is no mention of the BESHT's
view in Michtav M'Eliyahu, Sifsei Chaim presents this view [mistakenly
in my view] in the name of the Gra, It is also not mentioned by Rav
Wolbe, Shiurei Daas or R' Aryeh Kaplan. In fact not only does R' Kaplan
not mention it in his handbook in the chapter on providence but in his
anthology of chassidic views "The Light Beyond" - he does not mention
it in the chapter on providence. You do allow exemptions for mentioning
alternative view by the big people and thus seem to be saying that none
of the major hashkofic works needs to mention views they disagree with.
As you state Prof Levi is not in the same league as Rav Tzadok or the
Shomer Emunim. That means that the RYGBHP in practice only applies to
us lower echelon beings.

I disagree with this view. My position is that there is no difference
between the lower and higher echelon beings. Neither needs to teach
hashgafic or halachic views that are not accepted by the big people in
his mesorah. Thus if my mesorah is based on the teaching of the gedolim
of Lita - I would not teach positions which are unique to chassidus. If
my mesorah is chassidic - I would not teach contradictory non chassidic
views. In other worlds just as you exempt the big people from teaching
the full range you must also exempt their students.

All of this is very much l'maaseh for me as I have been working for the
last few years on a compendium of hashkofic issues - and it does not in
fact include chassidic views - except where I find a Rav Tzadok (or other
chassidic work) which reinforces points made by non chassidic sources.

Perhaps a reconciliation of our views is that it possibly depends on
the situation. In discussion with students - there are times when it
might be appropriate to mention chassidic views. However in publishing
a sefer which is targeted for the non chasidic audience it is not
appropriate. A support for this differentiating based on audience - is
that Prof Levi's work on Torah Study was put in cherem by Rav Schach -
despite strong haskomas' from R' Yaakov Kaminentsky, R' Ovadiah Yosef,
and the Gerrer Rebbe. Rav Schach did not think the presentations of the
views favorable to working was appropriate. Similarly R' Schwab suppressed
the publication of R' S. R. Hirsch's views concerning agadata because
he didn't want to stir up trouble since it contradicts modern hashkofa.

>Maharal:
>When an individual does not intend to scoff - rather only to state his
>belief - even if these positions stand against your belief and system,
>don't say to him: "Don't talk, seal your mouth!" For then the system
>will not be clarified. On the contrary, in such matters we should say:
>"Speak as much as you want, all that you want to say, so that you will
>not be able to say that were you granted permission to expand you would
>have spoken further [and convinced me with your beliefs]." If you do close
>his mouth and prevent him from speaking, that points toward a weakness in
>the system. ...

Of interest in view of the above quote is the Maharal's violent
denunciation of the view of the Me'or Einyaim in the previous section.
See the Sdei Chemed concerning the more permissive view of the students
of the Maharal and the Beis Yosef.

>In conclusion, I truly wish I could take sole credit for the RYGBHP
>of intellectual honesty and even-handedness. In truth, however, it is
>a principle I garnered from the works of R' Aryeh Kaplan zt"l and is
>succinctly articulated in "Immortality, Resurrection and the Age of
>the Universe" p. 2: "Second, we must keep in mind that there is no one
>binding opinion in matters that do not involve Jewish law or fundamental
>matters of faith..." See the discussion there and subsequently on pp. 6-7.

It is rather ironic citing R' Aryeh Kaplan as your source of open
mindedness when he is one of those who fails to mention the position
of the BESHT - despite not being on the level of Rav Tzadok.

In sum. Open minded discussion - in published hashkofic works of both
the great and not so great- of views you disagree with or are not part
of your mesorah - does not exist [sole exception so far is that of
the Lubavticher Rebbe].

gemar chasima tova
Daniel Eidensohn

On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 12:47:20PM -0500, gil@aishdas.org wrote:
: Le-halachah ve-lo le-ma'aseh, what obligation do I have to daven with
: the Hebrew pronunciation that my great-grandfather used if I was never
: taught that way by my parents?

RAYHKook addressed this she'eilah WRT those raised on hav'arah Yisra'elit.
Lechat-chilah, one should daven with one's traditional hav'arah. However,
those who could not be consistant because they were educated with and
consistantly use a different pronounciation, should not switch.

Then there's a question of where Galicianisher hav'arah came from. If
everyone who uses it has an even earlier ancestor who used something
closer to what you're used to, then perhaps you can invoke RMF's heter
for switching from chassidisher nusach "Sfard" to Ashkenazi.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
micha@aishdas.org        you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org   happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                        - Dale Carnegie

********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]